Russia Confirms Sale of Missiles to Iran

[Colrom]

So, when the US or Israel launches an attack against Iranian nuclear production or refining facilities how many people will they kill? 

depends on how many the noble iranians put there in an attempt to make us look bad.

 

Do they become terrorists and criminals?

uh, don't their current actions already start them down this path?

 

Does the UN slap an embargo on the US or Isrqael so that citizens go without oil and maybe even food?

dunno, but isn't this yet another double standard? i mean, isn't iran supposed to be NOT refining uranium in the first place?

 

Does somebody arrest the leaders?

what about their leaders? double standard number four.

 

Or maybe launch missile strikes against them when they drive around?

or wait till they nuke israel, or iraq... given that they've already voiced their intent. duh.

 

Can the leaders responsible go to Church or Synagogue?

sure, why not. the iranians are probably hiding in a mosque.

 

Just curious.  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i always wonder about hypocrisy myself.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So Taks, you seem to be very flip about killing people - at least Iranians.

 

Or does your flip disregard for human life extend to other people as well? :'(

 

Perhaps you ascribe to the new Bush doctrine. I think it says that it is OK to kill anyone that is imagined or dreamed might somehow be a danger someday.

 

Ordinary people who have these kinds of beliefs are labeled as psychotic killers and are locked up.

 

I hope you don't know where I live. "

 

You don't, do you?

[Commissar]

So Taks, you seem to be very flip about killing people - at least Iranians. 

 

Or does your flip disregard  for human life extend to other people as well?  :'( 

 

Perhaps you ascribe to the new Bush doctrine. I think it says that it is OK to kill anyone that is imagined or dreamed might somehow be a danger someday. 

 

Ordinary people who have these kinds of beliefs are labeled as psychotic killers and are locked up. 

 

I hope you don't know where I live.  "

 

You don't, do you? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will kill you. You do not deserve to exist. I shall do everything in my power to make sure you do not continue to do so.

 

Now, if I said that, and then went out and started trying to get ahold of, oh, say, an illegal automatic weapon, and you knew about it, wouldn't you want the police to do something about me getting ahold of an illegal automatic weapon?

[Colrom]

Hi Commissar.

 

I think you already have killing weapons - legal weapons.

 

I do take note that you have stated that you intend to kill me - which is profoundly different than a statement that I don't deserve to live or even a statement that someone should kill me.

 

Your statement is a definite threat. No doubt about that.

 

Hmmm.

 

And I believe you have the means.

 

I am concerned.

 

For a variety of reasons, however, I don't believe that your threat is a great enough danger to justify significant actions, yet.

 

In any case killing you would not be one of those actions.

 

But if you pursue this matter further I will contact authorities and ask them to take some appropriate action. :angry:

 

So far as I know Iran has not actually made threats against Israel or America or anyone else, although they have certainly indicated they don't like us much.

 

The only concrete threats I know about are threats made by Americans against Iran.

 

Threats like the one in this thread.

[Surreptishus]

Those smilies give a condescending tone to your post.

[Colrom]

Not my intent.

 

In fact, I think Commissar is quite intelligent and knowledgeable.

 

As are most other folks here also.

 

Hmmm.

[Volourn]

"So far as I know Iran has not actually made threats against Israel or America or anyone else"

 

You jokin' right?

[Judge Hades]

Iran has made verbal threats and nothing more. Of course Bushie started the whole verbal threats and attacks by calling them being part of the "Axis of Evil."

[taks]

So Taks, you seem to be very flip about killing people - at least Iranians.

you seem very flip about blaming the US in spite of everything iran has done, is doing, and has blatantly stated it intends to continue doing.

 

Or does your flip disregard  for human life extend to other people as well?

does your flip disregard for the US extend anywhere other than... well, the US?

 

Perhaps you ascribe to the new Bush doctrine. I think it says that it is OK to kill anyone that is imagined or dreamed might somehow be a danger someday.

uh, imagined, dreamed? let's recap: iran has stated that israel should be destroyed. iran has missles with which it can propel suitable materials for doing just that. iran is developing suitable materials for just that. did i miss something? are you on crack?

 

Ordinary people who have these kinds of beliefs are labeled as psychotic killers and are locked up.

and those that have your beliefs are labeled appeasers. so what's your point?

 

I hope you don't know where I live.

you have got to be kidding me?

 

taks

Edited January 4, 2006 by taks

[Volourn]

"Iran has made verbal threats and nothing more. Of course Bushie started the whole verbal threats and attacks by calling them being part of the "Axis of Evil."

 

Iran has been threatening Isreal for pretty much sinc eit was created. And, it's been an enemy of the US wayyyyy before Bush ever came into power. In fact, the reasonw hy the current Iranian dictator is in power is in large part due to the KIDNAPPING and subseuqent THREATENING of death of AMEIRKAN citizens.

 

And, le'ts not forget about them accusing the US of being the 'Great Satan'.

 

Face it, if the US wans't the Superpower, Isreal would be wiped out. Isreal is an ally and a friend of the US. The US has an obligation to stand by Isreal so any threat against Isreal is soemthing the US should take serious.

 

Hasn't WW2 taught anyone anything? You don't ignore your friends being threatened espicially with instinction.

 

I know, I for one, would step in if any of my friends were threatened with death.

[taks]

Those smilies give a condescending tone to your post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i had another word...

 

and yes, this (my post here) is pretty condescending.

 

taks

Edited January 4, 2006 by taks

[kirottu]

If I had a enemy with weapon against there isn

[Commissar]

If I had a enemy with weapon against there isn

[Walsingham]

If I had a enemy with weapon against there isn

[Surreptishus]

Of course Iran's goals may be simply to have nukes so as to put out a message. Or because a neighbouring country has them - Pakistan. Or because a geographically close potential enemy is reported to have nukes - Israel.

[Kinslayer]

UPDATE

[Colrom]

Could somebody point me to a history of specific threats and implied threats made

 

by Iran

 

by Israel

 

and by the US

 

against other countries

 

and to any records of past actions which might make those threats credable.

 

That would seem to be relevant.

 

With regard to the concept of appeasment - the word is most appropriately used to describe minor powers bending to threats by major powers - not major powers bending to girlish hysterical overblown fears of very minor powers.

 

It is false to justify cold blooded murders of basically defenseless people based on wild and cowardly fears of what they might someday be able to do and also to call those who oppose those murders appeasers.

[Gfted1]

Call me paranoid but those questions sure smack of a setup.

[taks]

It is false to justify cold blooded murders of basically defenseless people based on wild and cowardly fears of what they might someday be able to do and also to call those who oppose those murders appeasers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it is also false to attribute such actions to anything i've said. we (including me) do not wish to harm innocent people.

 

however, terrorists are known for putting civilians around their weapons factories simply to make aggressors look bad in the event of a bombing. they also hide out in mosques assuming we won't attack. that those civilians allow such actions make them a party to the crimes of their terrorist brethren. that they condone such actions is rephrehensible as well. they then, are just as guilty.

 

the term "appeasement" is attributed to those that refuse to see the forest through the trees in such cases. you sir, refuse to see what it is that is wrong about iran and its stated goals. you would condone their willingness to wipe out all of israel, yet i say blow up a munitions factory and i'm a murderer.

 

this isn't just a double standard. it is hypocrisy at its highest level.

 

for the record, since iran is a member of the UN, were they to need defending from surrounding aggressors, the US (and presumably the rest of the UN) are bound by treaty to defend them. saying they need nukes for defense is ridiculous. OTOH, should they continue to violate UN sanctions by seeking nuclear capabilities, the reverse is also true.

 

taks

[Lucius]

Maybe they trust Israel and the US about as much as you trust them? Could that be a reason for wanting the same weapons as you have?

[SteveThaiBinh]

for the record, since iran is a member of the UN, were they to need defending from surrounding aggressors, the US (and presumably the rest of the UN) are bound by treaty to defend them.  saying they need nukes for defense is ridiculous.

The first Gulf War was supposed to herald a new age of international law and security, as it was approved by the UN security council and supported by most of the world. In the 'New World Order', no country need have fear of external attack, because the US and UN would stand up and repel any illegal invasion, just like they got Iraq out of Kuwait. It was only a first step, but a lot of people had genuine hopes for a more orderly world.

 

Alas, the US and UK threw all of that out of the window by launching an illegal external attack on Iraq to protect us all from WMDs that didn't exist. The 'coalition' showed itself willing to ignore the UN and do whatever it thought best. International law and the authority of the UN were weakened. So now, if another country were to invade Iran, George Bush is more likely to applaud the invaders than stand up for Iranian sovereignty. Why then should the Iranians trust in the UN? Why not do everything in their power to get the best defence available? They are responding to an unstable insecure and lawless environment that we exacerbated.

 

I don't want to see Iran have nuclear weapons, or Pakistan, India or Israel for that matter. But what kind of security structure can we put in place so that these countries don't feel the need for nuclear weapons? Perhaps the US should include the whole Middle East in its Missile Defense system? What else would work?

[taks]

Alas, the US and UK threw all of that out of the window by launching an illegal external attack on Iraq to protect us all from WMDs that didn't exist.

illegal, yet somehow they happened to have UN approval for use of force? boggles the mind how easily folks such as yourself forget about the first vote... and all the treaty violations by saddam.

 

They are responding to an unstable insecure and lawless environment that we exacerbated.

uh, hate to tell you but the problems in the middle east existed looooong before the US even existed. they trying to right what they see as a biblical wrong.

 

But what kind of security structure can we put in place so that these countries don't feel the need for nuclear weapons?  Perhaps the US should include the whole Middle East in its Missile Defense system?  What else would work?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

they don't want it for defense, lucius, they want it for attacking israel... no amount of world defense will change that. they want to wipe out israel, and always have (though never openly said so till recently).

 

taks

[Lucius]

That was actually Steves quote you had there, but nevermind, what I mean is that maybe Iran feels threatened by the US and Israel as much as Israel (and the US) feels threatened by Iran.

[Volourn]

"Alas, the US and UK threw all of that out of the window by launching an illegal external attack on Iraq to protect us all from WMDs that didn't exist. The 'coalition' showed itself willing to ignore the UN and do whatever it thought best. International law and the authority of the UN were weakened."

 

Very convienent how you ignore the fact that the authority of the UN was weakened by the UN's inability to stop Iraq from breaking Resolution after Resolution.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Regardless of how the UN's authority was weakened and who is to blame (a debate for another thread, and no, I don't agree with you), it has been weakened. You can't be surprised that Iran won't rely on the UN and international law for its security.

they don't want it for defense, Steve, they want it for attacking israel... no amount of world defense will change that. they want to wipe out israel, and always have (though never openly said so till recently).

The leadership of Iran has said that it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map. For that reason, the regime in Iran is unacceptable, because any military capability they acquire, nuclear or otherwise, is likely to be turned on Israel. The only options are to destroy the capability and thus contain the threat, or to change the regime.

 

Containing the threat is what was tried in Iraq, and it proved ultimately not to work. Even if you bomb a few nuclear power stations from the air, there will always be doubt about the situation on the ground. 'Intelligence sources' will, accurately or not, report secret development facilities, mobile chemical factories, and so on. So long as the regime remains committed to the goal of acquiring nuclear weapons, ultimately the pressure will build, as it did with Iraq, for an invasion. This is, therefore, is only a way of delaying option 2 which is:

 

Invasion! Send in the US (and perhaps European?) armies to occupy Iran and effect regime change. Casualties will be heavy and ongoing, as resistance by Iranians is likely to be more serious than in Iraq - Iranians don't hate their regime the way Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein. The invasion will prove conclusively to the Muslim world that the West is involved in an anti-Islamic crusade. Recruitment to islamic terrorist organisations will jump, as will terrorist attacks against, amongst others, Israel. The US army will be bogged down, no more able to keep order in Iran than in Iraq, and certainly unable to fight a war elsewhere in the world. North Korea will become more aggressive as it sees the US occupied elsewhere. China may even invade Taiwan.

 

These are the nightmare scenarios that come into my mind when people start talking about how diplomatic efforts in Iran are doomed to failure. If you want to persuade me to your point of view, you need to pick apart what I've written above. I don't pretend to be an expert on Iran or foreign affairs, so it shouldn't be too hard for you guys.

Edited January 4, 2006 by SteveThaiBinh

[Commissar]

illegal, yet somehow they happened to have UN approval for use of force?  boggles the mind how easily folks such as yourself forget about the first vote... and all the treaty violations by saddam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think that's entirely the case.